Reply #78: oh goody [View All]

If that is the method they decide for themselves...
then so be it, who are we to decide what method of justice is best for them.

I think I'll round up a few of my neighbours -- we should be able to hit 47 without even going off the block -- and decide what method of justice is best for us.

Then we'll just trek to Parliament Hill and, um, shoot a couple of pigeons, and declare that an act of sovereignty, and set up a court in the vacant lot around the corner, and set about dispensing some justice. I can't wait to get the car alarm offenders in the dock. Off with their wheels, I say.

So be it, eh? Who is anybody else to decide what method of justice is best for us? Now, my tenant might not want to be voting differently from me when she gets in the jury box, lest she find herself looking for a new home, of course ...

The Pitcairn Islanders really just are not a nation, or even a people. They are citizens of the UK, as I understand it. And without that citizenship, they might be in a bit of a pickle.

I don't say that a restorative justice approach might not be preferable. I don't know nearly enough to have, let alone express, an opinion in that regard.

But as I said (you *were* replying to my post, right?), that is not something that happens by 47 people (some of whom, I'll wager, are schoolchildren) sitting around a table and thrashing things out. Just as no laws isn't freedom, it's the door to oppression and exploitation, no justice system - whatever that system might be - isn't justice, it's the door to lynch mobs and/or untrammeled victimization.

So "who are we" to decide what system of justice is best for them? Well, the "we" in question is of course not us; but it is pretty arguably the society/state to which they belong, subject to whatever legitimate claims they may have to some distinct status within that society, which I would be entirely open to saying they have.

But in the meantime, there are victims. The victims were victimized by other members of that same group. There *are* conflicting interests in play, and there *are* imbalances of power within even that small group. It almost sounds like you're suggesting that the lambs be left to work things out with the wolves.

And that would just be mighty liberal, wouldn't it then?